Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
An employee sued his supervisor and the Veteran’s Administration for discrimination by failing to providing a smoke-free work environment. The court found that the employee, who is hypersensitive to tobacco smoke, is “handicapped” under federal law because his sensitivity limits at least one of his major life activities, which is his capacity to work in an environment that is not completely smoke-free. The court dismissed the employee’s claim against his supervisor based on lack of evidence. The court also found that the claim against the federal agency failed because the agency had not discriminated against the employee in terms of work assignments, pay, or promotions as a result of complaining about the tobacco smoke or by filing the lawsuit. In fact, the court said that the agency had made reasonable efforts to accommodate the employee’s handicap, such as by getting a voluntary agreement from other employees not to smoke, moving the employee’s desk, installing vents and an air purifier, and offering the employee an outside maintenance job. The court noted that, at the time of the lawsuit, the agency had a policy that required supervisors to balance the rights of smokers and nonsmokers. As a result, the employee’s supervisor did not have the authority to completely prohibit smoking.